A $4 million study evaluating risk at Hanford is a waste of money that would have otherwise been used for cleanup by the Department of Energy’s Richland Operations Office, said several members of the Hanford Advisory Board. The board agreed at its November meeting to send a letter to Mark Whitney, acting assistant secretary for DOE environmental management, criticizing the study being started by the Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation (CRESP). The advisory board had been asked to provide input on the methodology of the study. CRESP defended its project after the meeting, with principal investigator David Kosson saying that critics either misrepresented or misunderstood the study plans. DOE commissioned the study from the independent, multi-university group to identify and characterize potential risks at Hanford to help guide the efficient use of federal money on environmental cleanup, according to a January memo from David Klaus, the DOE deputy undersecretary for management and performance. CRESP plans to identify and rate current and future risks to the public, workers and the environment to help DOE Headquarters officials make decisions about the sequence of cleanup activities at Hanford.
But the advisory board said in the letter to Whitney that the federal agency may use the study to try to reduce cleanup commitments. “It is looking for risk-based reasons not to clean up,” said Barbara Harper, who represents the Confederated Tribes of the Umatillas on the advisory board. The Umatillas and Yakamas also sent separate letters of concern. “I cannot imagine anything beneficial to Hanford cleanup coming out of this process,” said Ken Niles, who represents the state of Oregon on the advisory board. It is unclear what decisions the study would support, the board said in the letter. Decisions now are based on federal and state environmental laws that are predicated on risk reduction, the board said. But the CRESP study methodology does not address those legal requirements or the compensation the laws say must be paid for hazardous substances that remain after cleanup is completed.
The CRESP risk evaluation appears to be systematic and consistent, but it “is actually subjective and qualitative,” said the advisory board’s letter. The board criticized some of the assumptions being used as illogical or controversial. The evaluation confuses “risk” with hazards and impacts, the letter said. That could lead to an assumption that Hanford facilities such as the Plutonium Finishing Plant or sludge held underwater at the K West Basin near the Columbia River are very low risk because the public is not exposed to them now and worker exposure to radiation is closely monitored, the advisory board said. The advisory board also criticized the study’s reliance on Hanford’s current land use plan as the rationale for assuring there is little potential for long-term public access and exposure, the letter said. But if cleanup is not completed to standards for residential use or the uses granted tribes by treaty, then those future land use options are precluded. “This is unfair to future generations and creates liabilities for DOE,” the letter said.